Wilson has responded to my post on the fallacy of composition here. Certainly, he offers some food for thought here. I am not convinced ultimately by his attempt at evading the fallacy of composition, and here’s why. The standards for a denomination and the standards for an individual are different. We don’t require (at least in the PCA) subscription to the WS for admission into the church. We do require subscription to the WS for office-holders. This means that any old person who believes the Gospel can be admitted into the PCA church, as long as they promise to submit to and grow in the teaching of the church. But the denomination as a whole is held to a more narrow standard. This is why the fallacy of composition argument holds against Wilson’s position. We do not hold members to the same standards to which we hold office-bearers. Therefore, the denomination has a much greater responsibility to be correct on doctrinal matters. Doctrinal orthodoxy should be a goal for every member. However, that can be a matter of careful and longsuffering training. Whereas, in the case of office-bearers, they need to have their theological ducks in a row (although, of course, that is not all that is required) before they take office. Add to this my previous qualification that justification by faith alone can be taught using other words, and presto, no narrow sectarianism here, nor any presumptive and trigger-happy denomination blasting. I would argue that there are many denominations that teach justification by faith alone, even if they don’t use those words. But there are denominations that outright deny it. Those are apostate denominations. Practically speaking, I’m not sure there is much difference between saying that a denomination that doesn’t have justification by faith correct is corrupt versus saying it is apostate. I can’t think of any way in which I would treat a member of such a church differently. I would speak the true Gospel, explain justification by faith alone, and pray that the Lord would convict them of sin, and show them their need of Jesus. I still would argue, however, that a church that denies justification by faith alone denies the Gospel. If they deny the Gospel, then they are without one of the marks of the true church, namely, the Word faithfully preached. That would imply that that church is not a true church.
Jeff has completely missed the point here. We use the same basic membership questions that Jeff mentions there, and we have no problem asking our people to affirm these things and commit themselves to live in a certain way, a way that befits followers of Christ. But we do not demand that they trust in “living in this certain way” for their justification. We demand the opposite. We require them to not trust in what they are doing, and we also teach them not to trust in what they are saying. We teach them to trust in Christ, not to trust in themselves trusting in Christ. We do call upon them to confess their faith in Jesus alone. This is what we teach them to do, and it is how we lead them. What we do not do is tell them that their salvation hinges on whether they say the magic words just right, or have their face looking “just so” while they say it. We don’t tell them that they are apostate if they get some detail about justification wrong. To do so would be for us to deny sola fide.
This, I believe, is an illegitimate extension of what Jeff was saying. The point is not whether the words are just right. The point is whether they believe the truth, and I am absolutely confident that Jeff would agree with me here. Wilson just committed the word-concept fallacy: Jeff never said that a person has to say the magic words in just the right way. Jeff did say that a person must believe the substance of what justification by faith alone says. The point here is the doctrine, not the words, the concept, not the actual wording. We can put the question this way for clarification: would Wilson allow anyone into his church who believed that he was saved because justification consists in faith plus works? Surely, Wilson would not allow such a person to become a member. That person does not understand the Gospel. That is all that Jeff is saying. A person must understand the Gospel to be admitted into the church. They must show that they understand the Gospel. Otherwise they are not making a credible profession of faith.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
black&tanintheam said,
October 19, 2007 at 12:54 pm
I’d love to have a visitor or two….they might find something worth while.
http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/
Sorry for the shameless plug
Reed DePace said,
October 19, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Lane – sounds good to me.
Side question: why is it do you think that this pattern of deflected criticism sems to be routinely found in the FV debate? It amazes me how often from both sides of the debate we find ourselves believing that the other side has missed what we thought was obvious in our statements, and then criticizes us for the very failings we argue against.
Admittedly, this is a simplified explanation of your and Wilson’s exchang, but it does seem to be part of a larger pattern.
jared said,
October 19, 2007 at 12:59 pm
You’re still placing work requirements on salvation, Lane. You’re saying that the Gospel is a doctrine which must be rightly understood rather than good news which must be heard and believed. No one in the Reformed community is going to disagree that justification by faith alone is absolutely and essentially true. But to maintain it must be properly understood is an additional requirement that, I hope, few in the Reformed community would stipulate. This is basically Wilson’s point in a nutshell. He says, “If justification by faith alone is defined tightly (and in this controvsersy, that is certainly happening), and if a correct formulation of it is then made a requirement to keep one’s denomination from being treated as apostate, then you have just out-reformationed the reformation.” The glorious reality of justification by faith alone is that one need not understand or even agree with it to receive salvation; salvation is received by faith alone. I would even say that if they have true faith in Jesus they can deny whatever doctrines they want and still be saved in the end. Is this a licence to do so? Of course not, but it is certainly an allowance if nothing else. By your requirements someone like, say, Chesterton (who dispised Calvinism) was an apostate. I imagine him being one example amongst many who might deny the Reformed formulation of justification by faith alone and, yet, they still were saved.
You say, “Jeff did say that a person must believe the substance of what justification by faith alone says.The point here is the doctrine, not the words, the concept, not the actual wording.” That’s the problem; a person must believe in the Son whom the Father has sent. The point is the gospel message, not the doctrine or the concept of justification by faith alone. Further, you say “They must show that they understand the Gospel. Otherwise they are not making a credible profession of faith.” Now we must show that we understand the Gospel? How does that fit with “faith alone”? Whatever happend to “If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved”?
Finally, I think if someone posed the question you ask to Wilson, he would reply “Well, what do you mean by ‘faith plus works'”? And even if Wilson didn’t allow him membership at his church after the questioning, something tells me he wouldn’t consider that individual an apostate either.
kjsulli said,
October 19, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Jared,
The glorious reality of justification by faith alone is that one need not understand or even agree with it to receive salvation; salvation is received by faith alone.
If someone believes in justification by faith AND works (regardless of how he expresses it), he is by definition trusting in his own works for some part of his salvation. Such a person is not saved. But, there is a difference between actually having saving faith (which by necessity includes at least the understanding that I am a sinner who cannot save myself in anyway) and clearly and correctly articulating the doctrine of justification. Pr. Wilson is accusing Lane of requiring the latter, whereas Lane is only requiring the former. A true believer may articulate the doctrine of justification incorrectly, but he is still saved by virtue of his trusting in Christ alone and not in himself or anything else for his salvation. Conversely, someone may correctly articulate the doctrine and yet trust in something other than Christ!
I would even say that if they have true faith in Jesus they can deny whatever doctrines they want and still be saved in the end.
This is senseless. Can a person have true faith in Jesus and deny Jesus’ divinity or His humanity? Can a person have true faith in Jesus and deny monotheism? And what about all the stuff about having a “living faith” which the FV makes so central? Are good works now unnecessary? In what “Jesus” would such a person have faith? The outright denial of essential truths cannot coexist with true faith.
A person may not be able to articulate the hypostatic union and still believe that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human. He may not be able to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, with three coequal Persons existing from eternity in one Being, and yet still believe that God is One. He may have many sins still to mortify and bear few fruits as yet, but nevertheless be really changed so that his desires and inclinations are toward the good, and he continually repents of sin. He may not be able to express justification by faith alone as plainly as our confessional documents, yet still know that he has nothing in himself or anything else to add to his salvation in Jesus.
But if he denies that Jesus is fully divine, he is not saved. If he denies that Jesus is fully human, he is not saved. If he denies that God is one, he is not saved. If he denies that the Three are one God, he is not saved. If he practices evil without repentance and without and change, he is not saved. If he denies that he is saved ONLY by virtue of his union with Christ by faith, he is not saved.
David Gadbois said,
October 19, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“You’re still placing work requirements on salvation, Lane….The glorious reality of justification by faith alone is that one need not understand or even agree with it to receive salvation; salvation is received by faith alone.”
Lane’s position is certainly not a work requirement – it is a requirement dealing with the *nature* of that faith which saves. True, saving faith looks to Christ, not to works. If it looks to works *at all* then it is not true faith.
“You’re saying that the Gospel is a doctrine which must be rightly understood rather than good news which must be heard and believed.”
Oh, it must be believed, eh? Can you believe something without right understanding of what is believed? Go hit the books again, Jared – the Reformed have always held that notitia (understanding) is an essential component of saving faith along with assensus (assent) and fiducia (trust).
So while Gordon Clark (and followers) have made the error of taking fiducia out of faith, FV makes an equally large error (both unconfessional and unscriptural) by evacuating notitia out of the definition of saving faith.
“if a correct formulation of it is then made a requirement to keep one’s denomination from being treated as apostate, then you have just out-reformationed the reformation”
Not hardly. This is from the French Confession, drafted by Calvin and is one of the earliest Reformed confessions:
In this belief we declare that, properly speaking, there can be no Church where the Word of God is not received, nor profession made of subjection to it, nor use of the sacraments. Therefore we condemn the papal assemblies, as the pure Word of God is banished from them, their sacraments are corrupted, or falsified, or destroyed, and all superstitions and idolatries are in them. We hold, then, that all who take part in those acts, and commune in that Church, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ.
“Now we must show that we understand the Gospel? How does that fit with “faith alone”? Whatever happend to “If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved”?”
Well, did you even read the Bible verse you quoted? It talks about “confessing” with the mouth. We show that we have saving faith by a credible profession (or “confession”) of that faith, which is made with the mouth and shows that we understand the Gospel.
But you are mixing up the issue anyway – asking someone to show that they understand the Gospel is addressing how we know someone is a Christian and saved, it is not addressing how someone *becomes* saved. As usual, FV confuses the epistemological question with the metaphysical question.
This is all such basic Reformed 101 stuff, hundreds of years old. Lane’s position is such stark and boring “vanilla” Presbyterianism I am shocked that this is controversial in the least.
greenbaggins said,
October 19, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Jared, kjsulli and David have said what I would say in response. You are evacuating faith of propositional content. While faith is not limited to propositional content, you cannot believe that Hinduism’s Sheva is true God from true God and have a true and living faith in the God of the Bible. Also, you cannot believe that your own works will acquire salvation and be saved. Similarly, the Bible often uses the term “the faith” as the doctrine that the apostles passed down. The readers are strongly encouraged to keep that faith, not departing from it. Why? Because if they departed from that propositional content, they would be denying the faith. The reason I am not advocating a works-based doctrine here is that the propositional content of our faith is as much a gift from God as the other aspects of faith are. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth.
greenbaggins said,
October 19, 2007 at 2:20 pm
David, it’s good to be boring oftentimes, isn’t it? ;-)
greenbaggins said,
October 19, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Reed, I would say that it is fairly standard debate procedure to try to “turn the tables” on the opponent. This is just one way in which that is attempted.
magma2 said,
October 19, 2007 at 4:48 pm
David, Gordon Clark did not make a mistake taking fiducia out of faith, because it is never proper to define a word with the word itself and the three fold definition is tautological. As you may have noticed the FV men like Wilson have put it to good use. OTOH, you are correct and Jared is wrong, you can’t believe something you don’t understand.
Scott said,
October 19, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Thanks for staying faithful in defending Scripture. You are doing a commendable job helping us who are not theologians understand Federal Vision theology and its serious error. My wife and I remember to pray for you and our denomination that, by God’s grace, we stay focused on and faithful to Scripture and not go off.
I understand the SJC is meeting now and considering the complaint against the Louisiana Presbytery majority decision to not sanction Federal Vision teaching.
Any idea when we will hear anything about this? Are any of the documents posted?
Thank you.
gospel music » The Fallacy of Composition Revisited said,
October 19, 2007 at 8:09 pm
[…] I came across this post – The Fallacy of Composition Revisited – that I thought was worth sharing.Hope you enjoy […]
black&tanintheam said,
October 20, 2007 at 7:39 am
A credible profession of faith for admittance into the visible church? Ok.
As I listen to John W Robbins (www.trinityfoundation.org) in his lectures on AA theology (www.sermonaudio.com) I am constantly preaching to myself as I drive my 18 wheeler all over God’s blesses state of PA. Brothers, as I listen to these lectures I am constantly and consistently falling more and more in love with the healthier view of grace (ahem, the FV).
Robbins is a Clarkian and begins his series by condemning the AA/FV as Van Tillian heretics. He continues to espouse that we deny propositional truth for relational schmaltz.
John Robbins will critique the AA/FV for proclaiming that belonging to the church by virtue of profession and baptism across the board eliminates the possibility of talking appropriately to the flock. That is, if by baptism one is adopted, justified (sic), sanctified…..etc but can later fall away, how can one have any assurance? Surely….
http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/category/john-w-robbins/
come and see
greenbaggins said,
October 20, 2007 at 10:17 am
That’s why you need to read the other critics of the FV. There is more than one angle by which the FV can be critiqued. Please pay the critics the compliment of not painting them all with Robbins’s brush. Otherwise, you are doing the very thing that the FV complains of so much.
greenbaggins said,
October 20, 2007 at 10:18 am
I will let you know what the SJC’s decision is as soon as I know what it is (and if I can share what it is).
paulr said,
October 22, 2007 at 11:11 am
This is my first comment though I’ve been following the assorted FV controversies for awhile after “accidentally” stumbling across it whilst blog surfing. I’m not a Presbyterian or from the Reformed tradition so I’m not invested in this debate as it pertains in that context. I am interested in what is true and correct however which is why I’ve continued checking in on the ongoing process.
With regards this post and comments I’d like to posit the following situation:
I have a sister who is 44 years old and professes to be a Christian. However, as a result of a birth defect it has been determined that cognitively she is somewhere in the 5 – 7 year old range. Always has been, always will be. The result in this particular context strikes me as problematic at least as I read Lane’s post and the comments he agreed with because my sister is incapable of either articulating or even understanding the Gospel in any but the most rudimentary sense; Jesus loves me, I love Jesus. So where does that leave her? She doesn’t even understand the questions if asked about faith, justification or even what the gospel is. She knows–within the limits of her capacity–that Jesus died for her because He loves her–and that is about the limit of her understanding (and I imagine even in that she doesn’t understand it as a “normal” adult does).
As I read what Lane, Kjsulli and David G. have said it appears she’s simply out of luck. Because I don’t see how you allow an exception for her without making Jared’s case for him.
From my vantage point a lot of this debate frequently seems like two sides talking past each other. The point here isn’t to set up a hypothetical gotch’a because I do in truth have a sister in precisely this circumstance and it seems to me that perhaps in this one narrow portion of the debate resolving her “predicament” might lend a little clarity. I’m looking forward to seeing how Lane or any of his readers reconcile her situation.
greenbaggins said,
October 22, 2007 at 2:36 pm
As I have said, salvation does not depend on the perfect formulation of the doctrine. If your sister believes that Jesus is her ticket to eternal life, and that she cannot get into heaven by any other way, is that not an understanding of the Gospel sufficient for one of her mental capacity? Again, I am holding the church, as a whole, responsible for the correct formulation of justification by faith. Individuals may not (and need not) be quite as clear as the church needs to be. So, I am not quite sure how you think this example is a problem for my position.
jared said,
October 22, 2007 at 4:48 pm
kjsulli,
You say, “If someone believes in justification by faith AND works (regardless of how he expresses it), he is by definition trusting in his own works for some part of his salvation. Such a person is not saved.” (emphasis original). A persons salvation is not contingent upon what he believes about the doctrine of justification. To think so is to deny the very doctrine you are trying to support. Again, I offer up the example of someone like G.K. Chesterton who, no doubt, dispised Calvinism and Reformed doctrine(s) in general. Would you put your money where your mouth is in condemning him?
I said, “I would even say that if they have true faith in Jesus they can deny whatever doctrines they want and still be saved in the end.” and you said,
This is senseless. Can a person have true faith in Jesus and deny Jesus’ divinity or His humanity? Can a person have true faith in Jesus and deny monotheism? And what about all the stuff about having a “living faith” which the FV makes so central? Are good works now unnecessary? In what “Jesus” would such a person have faith? The outright denial of essential truths cannot coexist with true faith.
Yes, it’s as senseless as is the truth that the Creator of the universe died for one such as I. Doctrine, however, is not the same thing as truth so one can deny “essential” doctrines while maintaining essential truths (far be it for me to demonstrate such!). I understand the importance of right doctrine and, like you, I do not think that real faith would leave an individual to his own devices as far as truth and doctrine are concerned. True faith and salvation are not just a one time act, they are also a process which grows and matures. Can someone have true faith and deny monotheism? Sure, but, at the same time, I will say that such a person will not maintain this denial over the course of his faith. You ask hypothetical questions to which I give hypothetical answers; I honestly don’t think many come to Jesus while affirming belief in other deities nor do many come to Jesus while denying His divinity. But if they do and they are elect, their views will change. What is senseless about that? As to the rest of your comment: it is not your place to say who is saved and who is not. It is entirely possible that the Reformed position is mistaken on some points, pretension should not become us.
David,
You say, “Lane’s position is certainly not a work requirement – it is a requirement dealing with the *nature* of that faith which saves. True, saving faith looks to Christ, not to works. If it looks to works *at all* then it is not true faith.” I agree that true, saving faith looks to Jesus, not to works. What I disagree with is that having true, saving faith immediately imparts some sort of doctrinal understanding of what all is entailed by faith. To require an accurate (if even cursory) understanding of a doctrine is to require something over and above what the actual doctrine states. I
I’m sure Lane doesn’t believe this, as Wilson doesn’t think Lane believes this, though it certainly seems as though he does believe it given the synonymity he attributes to justification by faith and the gospel. He says that he “would argue that there are many denominations that teach justification by faith alone, even if they don’t use those words.” So what other words might some of these denominations use? Any so long as “works” is completely omitted? Where do you draw the line between not useing “those words” and outright denial? Do we even grant the possibility of outright denying doctrinally while practically affirming? For example, if you ask me I deny such a formulation as that we find in the WCF but how I talk about Jesus to others and how I live my life shows that I really believe Jesus is the only way and that I cannot be saved any other way but through the faith he has given me. If you spoke to me you would call me unsaved but if you looked at my life you would not. What of such individuals? In other words, if I live my life as worthy of my calling, I confess Jesus as Lord and Savior and I rest in Him for my salvation, all the while I also deny your doctrine of justification by faith; I am not saved? And all of this is brushed off with a quaint “So be it”? Sorry, but I think the gospel is a little more potent than you are giving it credit for here.
You say,
Oh, it must be believed, eh? Can you believe something without right understanding of what is believed? Go hit the books again, Jared – the Reformed have always held that notitia (understanding) is an essential component of saving faith along with assensus (assent) and fiducia (trust).
So while Gordon Clark (and followers) have made the error of taking fiducia out of faith, FV makes an equally large error (both unconfessional and unscriptural) by evacuating notitia out of the definition of saving faith.
I, along with “the Reformed”, hold that notitia is a component of saving faith. However, this does not imply or necessitate an understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith. I realize that Lane said one must show an understanding of the gospel but he had previously qualified that the gospel and the doctrine of justification by faith alone are essentially identical. I do not believe this so even though I do believe that the doctrine accurately details the reality of salvation as offered in the gospel. One can accept the offer of the gospel and be [truly] saved without knowing or understanding the first thing about the doctrine of justification by faith alone (though, assuming their acceptance is genuine, that will not always remain the case).
You say, “Well, did you even read the Bible verse you quoted? It talks about “confessing” with the mouth. We show that we have saving faith by a credible profession (or “confession”) of that faith, which is made with the mouth and shows that we understand the Gospel.” Yes, I did; and once again you equate (like Lane) understanding the gospel with understanding a particular doctrine. You also say, “But you are mixing up the issue anyway – asking someone to show that they understand the Gospel is addressing how we know someone is a Christian and saved, it is not addressing how someone *becomes* saved.” Now here’s a valid point and an appropriate distinction. This is an honest mistake on my part as I was (or am/have been?) conflating these two issues. I’m sure I’ve no disagreement with Lane, you, or anyone else in the Reformed tradition as to how someone becomes saved. I do take issue with methods of determining whether someone is saved because that is knowledge to which only God and the individual truly have accesss. We can use discerment with regard to church membership but this should not be pushed too far. I really do believe that you, Lane, kjsulli and myself are saved and, if asked, I would say as much; but I’ve no way to know absolutely until we embrace in heaven.
Lane,
Other than the accusations you lay against me, I agree with you and the clarifications you make in post #6.
paulr said,
October 22, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Re: 16
Two things come to mind. 1) Perhaps you don’t have much experience with profoundly retarded persons and/or 2) your reply (while appreciated) is to repeat what you’ve already offered.
In this particular the concept of eternal life is beyond her as is, in most senses, any accurate notion of what heaven is beyond where Jesus lives. Does that still qualify? Or perhaps how imperfect a formulation remains acceptable? Somewhere in here you either say she has the requisite faith regardless of the level of her understanding or you say without sufficient understanding as you define it she’s out of luck. Btw, I understand why this is an issue but I also think her particular situation creates an inevitable tension that you aren’t responding to until you draw a line somewhere. And the reason you have to draw that line is because you are insisting that faith must be correctly informed (in some measure) to be legitimate faith.
kjsulli said,
October 30, 2007 at 3:44 pm
jared, re: 17,
A persons salvation is not contingent upon what he believes about the doctrine of justification. To think so is to deny the very doctrine you are trying to support.
A person who believes that he is saved in any way and to any extend by his own works is not saved. A person who denies that salvation is only on the basis of Christ’s work is not saved. Such people do not have true faith, because true faith rests on Christ alone. So SOME understanding of the doctrine of justification is required, not because that understanding causes salvation, but because that understanding results from Spirit-wrought faith.
Again, I offer up the example of someone like G.K. Chesterton who, no doubt, dispised Calvinism and Reformed doctrine(s) in general. Would you put your money where your mouth is in condemning him?
I don’t know much about G.K. Chesterton, but if he whole-heartedly embraced the heretical teachings of Rome to his death, he is damned.
Yes, it’s as senseless as is the truth that the Creator of the universe died for one such as I.
Not even close, Jared! The idea that the Creator died for a sinner like you does not require twists of logic whereby beliefs scripturally necessary for salvation are able to be denied.
Doctrine, however, is not the same thing as truth so one can deny “essential” doctrines while maintaining essential truths (far be it for me to demonstrate such!).
This is meaningless. What differentiates “true doctrines” from “truths”? I have already said that correct formulation is not necessary, and spend a good deal proving the same.
Can someone have true faith and deny monotheism? Sure, but, at the same time, I will say that such a person will not maintain this denial over the course of his faith.
If a person believes there is any other true and living God beside THE true and living God, he does not have faith, and therefore is not saved.
I honestly don’t think many come to Jesus while affirming belief in other deities nor do many come to Jesus while denying His divinity. But if they do and they are elect, their views will change. What is senseless about that?
You can’t have faith in the one true and living God while simultaneously believing there are other true and living gods, nor can you have faith in Jesus while denying who He is. To say that these things are possible is senseless.
As to the rest of your comment: it is not your place to say who is saved and who is not. It is entirely possible that the Reformed position is mistaken on some points, pretension should not become us.
It is not my place to decide who will be saved or who will not. That’s God’s place. But according to Scripture, it is possible to determine whether someone who claims to be saved really is based on their fruits. We may determine incorrectly, but there are some cases that are pretty clear cut. Denial of essential Christian doctrine is clear cut.